Passive Occupy protesters take pepper spray blast

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. You must show that your assertion is true.

I can wait. I know Don has been waiting for weeks. Go for it. Show your sources of facts and figures on this claim.

 

The onus is not on me to disprove an assertion that you have made. The burden is yours. Time to cite your evidence (other than your one article), if you have any. Otherwise, your accusation will appear baseless.

 

I should have read your post before submitting mine. Could've saved the effort.

 

TC: was the right to assembly not what you meant when you said "Its not freedom unless EVERYBODY has it?"

 

Wow. Just wow.

You basically refused to post such evidence in the previous thread. Now you want to use one piece of evidence to back up your bodacious claim. One policeman, one incident, does NOT equal "higher percentage are ex-military who brutalize people." And you further hurt your claim with "my guess."

That's because you can't find the data to support your claim. Thus, your viewpoint is incorrect, and can't be corroborated.

Those who hold on to a viewpoint that can't be proven, that can't be supported, that has been shown to have research that contradicts such viewpoint--are either willfully ignorant, or insane.

You are intellectually dishonest, both with those who read these threads; and more importantly, with yourself.

There--I've publicly called you a liar. Now prove me wrong.

 

Here's a quote that's readily available on the internet, if you just take a few minutes to look:
"...there are about 10% of military on my department of around 1200 sworn."

I'm not thinking that fulfills "high percentage."

 

Problem with that is, I've proven you're a liar. And a silly response like this, instead of showing anything to the contrary, only adds more proof to my statement.

By the way: Would it do any good for me to ask you to provide the proof that I want to take away your rights?

 

Silly boy; it's not just me "sayin' so." I provided my references in that other thread, and you never posted anything to refute that, much less support your position.

Now you refuse to post your support that I'm a traitor and a coward.

You're just full of unsubstantiated accusations, aren't you?

 

I don't think you're a liar; you are a liar. Your lie is that a high percentage of policemen who are guilty of brutality are ex-military. In the previous thread, you said "many." In both that thread and this one, you have yet to provide proof to corroborate your statements. That makes you a liar, plain and simple.

It'd be real easy to get past the school-yard part of this conversation: Post your proof, and then I'll look the fool, and have to do all kinds of apologizing and groveling.

Problem is, you can't. So you resort to calling me a traitor and a coward--again, with no proof to back up your statements.

 

Say what? What were you even referencing with that statement?

Come on, Free; I double-dog dare you to provide your proof of my standing with those who strip away our rights and freedoms.

Or was I offering a counter-point to the immediate "the police are wrong" statements? (see post #90, page 9)

 

Since I wrote previous message while you were editing this, here's my question: How does post #38 support your premise that I'm a traitor and a coward? Much less that I'm denying something?

I asked a relevant question in that post; are you ignoring that question because it would actually damage your position?

 

Is this the Same FAL....

.....who seems to be for military intervention in other threads?

Did this incident hit too close to home??? This doesn't seem to be like the FAL that is always preaching the Scripture, and if Jesus told us to render unto Ceasar what is his Matthew 22:21, and before you jump on me and tell me that this particular Scripture is related to the paying of taxes, could it not also mean that we are to obey the laws of the land?

After all Jesus did quiet any talk of revolution on behalf of His Disciples and followers as they dragged Him off to stand trial and face execution on the cross!?!?!

And yes, I realize that Jesus knew He had to die for our sin, so he was simply trying to quell the faithful to intervening with God's eternal plan and Scriptrual prophecy foretelling of His death and resurrection! However, how did Jesus know that this particular incident was the one leading to the crucifixion?

We also need to take into context the fact that Jesus told His following, when confronted by the Pharisees, that the Kingdom He preached about was not one on earth, and it would not come personal or fleshly observation (Luke 17:20-21)!

This just doesn't seem like the FAL I'm used to hearing, especially when it comes to following the legal content and direction of the Word?!?!?!